Auorarion1W Enchantment Creature — Shapeshifter
You may have Auorarion enter the battlefield as a copy of any Enchantment on the battlefield except it retains its name and types. If that Enchantment is an Aura, you may have Auorarion enchanting itself. We are vulnerable to all the light we cast—and everything we reflect can be reflected back against us.
2/2
If it's a creature, its power and toughness obviously becomes the values of the card that it becomes a copy of—right?
Excalibur5 Legendary Artifact
Sanctity (As you cast this spell or when it's removed from the stack, if you have less than five cards in hand, you may draw cards until you have five cards in hand.)
Equipped creature gets +1/+5 as long as it's attacking; +7/+7 as long as it's blocking; and has shroud as long as it's untapped.
Equip 5
Equip legendary 0 With great power comes great responsibility—else comes great consequence. And even the chosen will die.
303.4d An Aura can't enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard. An Aura that's also a creature can't enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner's graveyard.
Auorarion doesn't work the way you want it to. If it copies a non-creature enchantment, it ceases to be a creature. See Clever Impersonator.
An easy fix would be to have it be a creature which creates a token copy of an enchantment when it enters the battlefield. If that token is an aura, attach it to a permanent you control.
Aurorian is interesting, as a Copy Enchantment that has the option to just be a 2/2. Copying is usually just a blue ability, but it wouldn't be too much a bend in white, though this should probably cost 2W.
The previous posters are correct that it won't be a creature if it copies a non-creature enchantment and that it cannot enchant itself. There are ways you can adjust the effect, but it depends on what functionality you want from different circumstances.
What is most important to you?
a) That it can copy any enchantment.
b) That it will be a creature in addition to whatever enchantment it copies.
c) That it can copy an aura and attach to something.
The equipment part of Excalibur is a neat effect, though the continuous righteousness combined with hexproof when blocking (since you're untapped to block) is probably too strong. I know you're trying to reference Diplomatic Immunity, but the hexproof should probably be dependant on the creature not being in combat so it doesn't combine with the +7/+7. I'd change the equip cost for legendary to 1, and possibly reduce the other to 4. As an equipment its a cool idea, and might could even cost 4.
Your keyword muddies it a lot though. First off, we know the argument of "That's not how 'or' works on triggers," so I'm just going to bypass that right now.
5 mana to potentially draw 5 cards it way under costed. That ability at that cost makes this better to be played in an aggressive deck that empties its had quickly or discards. (Add that if you play correctly as written, you get to draw up to five on cast, cast any instants or discard effects to re-empty your hand, and then draw back up to 5 again on resolution.)
Also, the name "Sanctity" doesn't evoke drawing cards. The name feels like it should be some kind of protection effect.
Coming up with dozens of these keywords and putting them on one card each defeats the purpose of having keywords in the first place, which is to give players an evocative shorthand for an effect so they don't have to read the reminder text each time once they've learned it. If you have all these different things, none of them are going to be able to be kept straight by a player.
If you want to build a set around your ideas, figure out the big ideas for the set, and then choose which one variation works better since not all environments are equal. Then focus on designing the set and use your mechanic the way scry was in Theros or cycling in Ikoria.
Its really frustrating because you come up with some pretty neat cards, but instead of just letting those cards be what they are, you distract from where they are creative or elegant by putting you deus ex abilities in really out-of-place spots.
303.4d An Aura can't enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard. An Aura that's also a creature can't enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner's graveyard.
Auorarion doesn't work the way you want it to. If it copies a non-creature enchantment, it ceases to be a creature. See Clever Impersonator.
An easy fix would be to have it be a creature which creates a token copy of an enchantment when it enters the battlefield. If that token is an aura, attach it to a permanent you control.
I initially had the clause on there, "in addition to its other types", but then felt that should be unnecessary.
303.4d An Aura can't enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard. An Aura that's also a creature can't enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner's graveyard.
We would just omit this silly rule.
Dumb rule is dumb
If you have so much disdain for the rules of Magic the Gathering, why are you spending so much time designing cards for Magic the Gathering? Seriously?
Auorarion doesn't work the way you want it to. If it copies a non-creature enchantment, it ceases to be a creature. See Clever Impersonator.
An easy fix would be to have it be a creature which creates a token copy of an enchantment when it enters the battlefield. If that token is an aura, attach it to a permanent you control.
I initially had the clause on there, "in addition to its other types", but then felt that should be unnecessary.
It is 100% necessary if you want it to still be a creature if it copies something that isn't a creature. You still have to worry about the other logistics of coping an aura, such as creatures not being allowed to be attached to things, or if you copy an aura that enchants land or other noncreature nonenchantment permanents. But its an important first step.
Edit - To make such an effect work as intended you will need something like:
Auorarion1WW
Enchantment Creature - Shapeshifter
You may have ~ enter the battlefield as a copy of any enchantment on the battlefield except it's a creature in addition to its other types. If you copy an Aura it loses its enchant ability and any references made to an enchanted object, reference ~ instead.
This uses some rules specific language that doesn't normally show up on cards but I'm fairly certain that this perfectly accomplishes the intent of the design and isn't confusing to the layman reading/playing it.
303.4d An Aura can't enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard. An Aura that's also a creature can't enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner's graveyard.
We would just omit this silly rule.
Dumb rule is dumb
If you have so much disdain for the rules of Magic the Gathering, why are you spending so much time designing cards for Magic the Gathering? Seriously?
It's not like card text always overrides the rules anyways when it says so, right?
It's not a dumb rule. And it doesn't work the way you want it to. Don't forget that an aura would fall off a permanent if it isn't a permanent type that the aura can enchant. For example, if an aura with enchant creature is somehow suddenly enchanting a non-creature, it is put in the graveyard.
Instead of refusing to change your card text to fit the rules, and insisting that the rules would just be changed to fit your one card (never mind the consequences for other cards/interactions), maybe you could just consider changing your card's wording, as suggested above.
I do not find Excalibur simple - it has a lot of conditional text on it, and I don't really see what it has to do with "also you draw up to 5 cards when you cast this" either. I don't get it.
There's nothing wrong with an Aura falling off permanents they can't enchant.
That's sensible and functional.
However, we all know when a card says to do something, the rules get on their knees.
No, that isnt how its works. There are a number of rules whose entire purpose is to stop cards from doing things the rules don't want to happen. The above mentioned rule is one of those. Remember above the "card text trumps rules" is "can't beats can" you are trying to beat a can't. Don't try to beat can't. It's easier to get around the can't rather than barrel through.
101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).
101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
Effects only—meaning the effect of another card, which explicitly says 'can't'—or in this case is re-hashing the comprehensive ruling on Auras.
So, to be fair, the rules do tend to allow for things to override the rules. That is what 101.1 covers. The main issue with this, and combining it with "can't" effects and rules, is that there are only 2 precedents that I can find. Both are pretty tenuous but they are there:
First, 302.6 says creatures can't attack or activate abilities with the tap symbol if they are summoning sick. Haste directly contradicts this and haste wins out.
Second, rule 402.3 says players can't look at the cards in an opponent's hand. Obviously, the bulk of discard as well as a few other effects override this too.
Now, the main issue with this is that the rules themselves are very seldomly worded as a restriction. That is, nearly everything we do in this game is because we have *permission* to do so by the rules. We aren't necessarily restricted from the doing things; we are simply given permission and we follow those permissions. It is why things like Bring to Light work. The rules don't say we can't cast spells in the middle of a spell resolving; we just don't normally have permission to do so. Bring to Light provides permission.
So, with the idea of the ruleset being, by and large, permissive in nature, user_938036's point above stands. If the rules are written in such as way as to prevent something from happening, this is mostly adhered to in the bulk of Magic design with the above exceptions. Which means designing a card to directly contradict one of the few "can't" rules is not recommended and has very little precedent.
Beyond the rules issues, or concerns, the wording on the ability still doesn't work. I have seen enough of Reap's threads to know it won't be changed so the rest of the conversation is simply academic. Copying an Enchantment makes it *only* an enchantment and there are very few Auras that can be attached to enchantments so the situation isn't likely to come up with the current wording. And yes, I realize that isn't the intent, but we all know "intent" and "correct templating/wording" never go together in these designs so it is a moot point.
And, while I am at it: Sanctity gives the provided effect twice. Again, not the intent but the wording allows it. This has been discussed to death so I am not going to rehash other's arguments on it.
101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).
101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
Effects only—meaning the effect of another card, which explicitly says 'can't'—or in this case is re-hashing the comprehensive ruling on Auras.
Multiple people on this thread have suggested multiple ways that this could be done, that don't require you to ignore rules. Instead of going through your logical contortions to justify this, why not just change the card to actually work? At the very least, do you acknowledge this card should have the added text "(This doesn't cause Auorarion to be placed into its owner's graveyard for failing to enchant a legal target)" or something like that?
Take Enchantment Alteration as an example. Instead of its current wording, what if it said "Attach target Aura attached to a creature or land to another permanent." Omitting the "of that type" that is in the current oracle wording. Now this card can move an aura with enchant creature to a land. What happens? The game says the enchantment falls off. The card doesn't change that. You need to clarify that, or build a way for it to work.
This is going to be my last post on this topic because quite frankly, you don't seem interested in valid critiques of your cards. Your card would never be printed as-is, irrespective of the quality of the design. If you're fine with that, then great.
So, to be fair, the rules do tend to allow for things to override the rules. That is what 101.1 covers. The main issue with this, and combining it with "can't" effects and rules, is that there are only 2 precedents that I can find. Both are pretty tenuous but they are there:
First, 302.6 says creatures can't attack or activate abilities with the tap symbol if they are summoning sick. Haste directly contradicts this and haste wins out.
Second, rule 402.3 says players can't look at the cards in an opponent's hand. Obviously, the bulk of discard as well as a few other effects override this too.
It's because Rule 101 is intended to to be the one above all—for coherence, continuance, and force majeur of the game.
All 'card effects' override all 'comprehensive rules'.
Only other contradicting card effects can overrule from here. In which, the one that says 'can't' will take precedence between them.
This creates a perfect logical circuit, where the resolve can easily be found between the cards directly in play.
101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).
101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
Effects only—meaning the effect of another card, which explicitly says 'can't'—or in this case is re-hashing the comprehensive ruling on Auras.
Multiple people on this thread have suggested multiple ways that this could be done, that don't require you to ignore rules. Instead of going through your logical contortions to justify this, why not just change the card to actually work? At the very least, do you acknowledge this card should have the added text "(This doesn't cause Auorarion to be placed into its owner's graveyard for failing to enchant a legal target)" or something like that?
Take Enchantment Alteration as an example. Instead of its current wording, what if it said "Attach target Aura attached to a creature or land to another permanent." Omitting the "of that type" that is in the current oracle wording. Now this card can move an aura with enchant creature to a land. What happens? The game says the enchantment falls off. The card doesn't change that. You need to clarify that, or build a way for it to work.
There is a point here you're missing in that—'the new target must be legal' clause is technically card text.
It's provided (and is intended to work) as card text—not comprehensive ruling—for continuance and functionality (for example, unadaptable parameters [power/toughness] on enchantments, etc.—which is not functional). However, this card text is simply placed in (parentheses) so that it creates an emphasis on this effect (an effect which is kind of abstract from the card/concept/effect).
This means and method is like a way to separate fantasy from reality—or work from fun.
Given that this is truly card text, nothing is changing here in regards to the Golden Rules and their domain.
An enchantment enchanting itself doesn't make sense, its like hanging a picture on itself.
For a card to break the game rules, it must explain how to actually do so. The rule above directly states that that if an Aura does somehow become attached to itself it is put into the graveyard. Your card as written wouldn't change that: It would become a copy of the chosen Aura and then enchant itself, and then state based effects would check and see an aura enchanting itself as say, "You need to go to the graveyard." and the card would say, "Okay!" and do so.
The problem is, there actually are probably ways to template the card for some of the functionality you want it to have in different ways, but you'd rather argue that the rules need to change to your whim than have a discussion of what interactions you want your card to have so we can help.
'You may have it enchanting itself' is pretty self explanatory alongside the additional 'creature' supertype. The creature inherents all the abilities of 'enchanted creature' or 'enchanted permanent' as normal.
There would be a loop-hole in that Auras which enchant other types of permanents (such as 'enchant land') won't see their effects take precedence unless that supertype is gained by the host.
I do agree though, that this effect might (or should) be worded with an "As this enters the battlefield" function, so that it can enchant other types of permanents without any unnecessary adaptations being needed to hotfix the functionality.
Your text says the you can attach the enchantment to itself, but the rules still additionally spell out that a self-enchanting aura is put into the graveyard and your text doesn't address that. Then somehow also adding text to let an aura enchant a permanent other than the type it has the Enchant ability for is even more text, not to mention addressing how abilities on those Auras interact with the enchanted permanent that they weren't designed for. (Wild Growth enchanted to Llanowar Elves, Elves isn't an "enchanted land", so tapping it for mana doesn't produce extra mana, or does it? (It doesn't, but it will confuse peole))
Any time you need a wall of text to make an niche interaction work, you are making a card less elegant and worse. The better solution is to have your card copy non-Aura enchantments if you want it to be a creature. It avoids you having to do all these backflips of conditional rules to cancel other rules and its pretty standard practice for how the game handles effectsthatwouldbeproblematic with auras (or equipment too).
Try this:
Auorarion 1W
Enchantment Creature — Shapeshifter
You may have CARDNAME enter the battlefield as a copy of any enchantment on the battlefield. If CARDNAME copies a non-creature, non-Aura enchantment in this way, CARDNAME enters the battlefield as a 2/2 Shapeshifter creature in addition to its other types and abilities.
2/2
This will copy any enchantment and if it copies an Aura, the aura attaches to a legal permanent per the normal rules. If it copies a non-aura, it is a 2/2, and if it copies a enchantment creature it will keep that creature's power/toughness and types.
Uh... it can still copy Oblivion Ring as that card is not an aura, which may make that a bad example.
Also, the fact that you specify that it “may” enchant itself (Making it optional) seems to imply that you can indeed use exhaustion on an opponent’s creature.
I decided that I don't want it to function like that.
Meaning, I don't want it to be able to copy Dehydration or Oblivion Ring and enchant a creature an opponent controls.
Mine as well just make a different design for that entirely, which can also copy enchantments outside the battlefield this way.
This is in fact the current functionality. If you don't want it to be able to Pacifism an opponent creature you need to rework it. As it enters as a copy of Pacifism then because its an aura that entered the battlefield without a target you get to choose a proper target for it to enchant. This is why proper communication is important. You just discover an unintended function of your card that you don't want. Now you need to retool it so it loses that function.
Well, Oblivion Ring isn't an Aura, so there's not a way to stop a card that can copy enchantments from copying an O-ring. Copying non-Auras would get around Dehydration-like enchantments, though. Restricting it to enchantments you control might help as well, and it seems more white than copying anyone's (which is more blue)
What do you want your card to do, because that's still unclear?
Is your intention for it to copy an enchantment and then be a 2/2 in addition to that, or is the 2/2 a default if there's no enchantment to copy?
If you copy an enchantment creature, do you want it to copy that creature's power/toughness, or still be a 2/2?
Do you want to be able to copy anyone's enchantments, or just your own?
Auras or not? (Understanding than an aura cannot be a creature and be attached to something)
No—it can't enchant other permanents if copies an Aura because those targets are chosen while it's on the stack.
It would require an "As ~ enters the battlefield" function, as was suggested and explained earlier (so that it becomes the enchantment before it enters the battlefield—and you can effectively make those choices). The functionality it currently has sees it become the enchantment after it enters the battlefield, which is too late to make the 'enchant parameter' selections.
I don't think it's healthy to have that functionality at this level, and this place on the mana curve.
No—it can't enchant other permanents if copies an Aura because those targets are chosen while it's on the stack.
It would require an "As ~ enters the battlefield" function, as was suggested and explained earlier (so that it becomes the enchantment before it enters the battlefield—and you can effectively make those choices). The functionality it currently has sees it become the enchantment after it enters the battlefield, which is too late to make the 'enchant parameter' selections.
I don't think it's healthy to have that functionality at this level, and this place on the mana curve.
Actually, your statement is somewhat incorrect in this case. Your current language uses the exact same "You may have X enter the battlefield as a copy of..." language that is also used on Mirrormade from Throne of Eldraine.
And here's the relevant quote:
"If Mirrormade copies an Aura this way, you choose what the Aura will enchant just before it enters the battlefield. You can’t choose any permanent cards entering the battlefield at the same time as that Aura. This doesn’t target the player or permanent it will enchant, so an opponent’s permanent with hexproof may be chosen this way. The chosen recipient must be able to legally be enchanted by the Aura, so a player or permanent with protection from one of the Aura’s qualities can’t be chosen this way. If there’s nothing legal for Mirrormade to enchant, it stays in its current zone (unless it’s a spell, in which case it’s put into its owner’s graveyard)."
In short, a copied aura attaches itself to something as it enters the battlefield and it needs not target in order to do so, dodging hexproof, heroic triggers, and so forth. It's a bit of an oddity but this is simply how the rules are right now.
Enchantment Creature — Shapeshifter
You may have Auorarion enter the battlefield as a copy of any Enchantment on the battlefield except it retains its name and types. If that Enchantment is an Aura, you may have Auorarion enchanting itself.
We are vulnerable to all the light we cast—and everything we reflect can be reflected back against us.
2/2
If it's a creature, its power and toughness obviously becomes the values of the card that it becomes a copy of—right?
Excalibur 5
Legendary Artifact
Sanctity (As you cast this spell or when it's removed from the stack, if you have less than five cards in hand, you may draw cards until you have five cards in hand.)
Equipped creature gets +1/+5 as long as it's attacking; +7/+7 as long as it's blocking; and has shroud as long as it's untapped.
Equip 5
Equip legendary 0
With great power comes great responsibility—else comes great consequence. And even the chosen will die.
Combination Hero's Resolve, Righteousness, plus Diplomatic Immunity. Simple and sweet, and probably exactly what it wants to be for this design.
An easy fix would be to have it be a creature which creates a token copy of an enchantment when it enters the battlefield. If that token is an aura, attach it to a permanent you control.
The previous posters are correct that it won't be a creature if it copies a non-creature enchantment and that it cannot enchant itself. There are ways you can adjust the effect, but it depends on what functionality you want from different circumstances.
What is most important to you?
a) That it can copy any enchantment.
b) That it will be a creature in addition to whatever enchantment it copies.
c) That it can copy an aura and attach to something.
The equipment part of Excalibur is a neat effect, though the continuous righteousness combined with hexproof when blocking (since you're untapped to block) is probably too strong. I know you're trying to reference Diplomatic Immunity, but the hexproof should probably be dependant on the creature not being in combat so it doesn't combine with the +7/+7. I'd change the equip cost for legendary to 1, and possibly reduce the other to 4. As an equipment its a cool idea, and might could even cost 4.
Your keyword muddies it a lot though. First off, we know the argument of "That's not how 'or' works on triggers," so I'm just going to bypass that right now.
5 mana to potentially draw 5 cards it way under costed. That ability at that cost makes this better to be played in an aggressive deck that empties its had quickly or discards. (Add that if you play correctly as written, you get to draw up to five on cast, cast any instants or discard effects to re-empty your hand, and then draw back up to 5 again on resolution.)
Also, the name "Sanctity" doesn't evoke drawing cards. The name feels like it should be some kind of protection effect.
Coming up with dozens of these keywords and putting them on one card each defeats the purpose of having keywords in the first place, which is to give players an evocative shorthand for an effect so they don't have to read the reminder text each time once they've learned it. If you have all these different things, none of them are going to be able to be kept straight by a player.
If you want to build a set around your ideas, figure out the big ideas for the set, and then choose which one variation works better since not all environments are equal. Then focus on designing the set and use your mechanic the way scry was in Theros or cycling in Ikoria.
Its really frustrating because you come up with some pretty neat cards, but instead of just letting those cards be what they are, you distract from where they are creative or elegant by putting you deus ex abilities in really out-of-place spots.
We would just omit this silly rule.
Dumb rule is dumb
I initially had the clause on there, "in addition to its other types", but then felt that should be unnecessary.
If you have so much disdain for the rules of Magic the Gathering, why are you spending so much time designing cards for Magic the Gathering? Seriously?
Edit - To make such an effect work as intended you will need something like:
Auorarion 1WW
Enchantment Creature - Shapeshifter
You may have ~ enter the battlefield as a copy of any enchantment on the battlefield except it's a creature in addition to its other types. If you copy an Aura it loses its enchant ability and any references made to an enchanted object, reference ~ instead.
This uses some rules specific language that doesn't normally show up on cards but I'm fairly certain that this perfectly accomplishes the intent of the design and isn't confusing to the layman reading/playing it.
It's not like card text always overrides the rules anyways when it says so, right?
Instead of refusing to change your card text to fit the rules, and insisting that the rules would just be changed to fit your one card (never mind the consequences for other cards/interactions), maybe you could just consider changing your card's wording, as suggested above.
I do not find Excalibur simple - it has a lot of conditional text on it, and I don't really see what it has to do with "also you draw up to 5 cards when you cast this" either. I don't get it.
That's sensible and functional.
However, we all know when a card says to do something, the rules get on their knees.
101.1. Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the game at any time (see rule 104.3a).
101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
Effects only—meaning the effect of another card, which explicitly says 'can't'—or in this case is re-hashing the comprehensive ruling on Auras.
First, 302.6 says creatures can't attack or activate abilities with the tap symbol if they are summoning sick. Haste directly contradicts this and haste wins out.
Second, rule 402.3 says players can't look at the cards in an opponent's hand. Obviously, the bulk of discard as well as a few other effects override this too.
Now, the main issue with this is that the rules themselves are very seldomly worded as a restriction. That is, nearly everything we do in this game is because we have *permission* to do so by the rules. We aren't necessarily restricted from the doing things; we are simply given permission and we follow those permissions. It is why things like Bring to Light work. The rules don't say we can't cast spells in the middle of a spell resolving; we just don't normally have permission to do so. Bring to Light provides permission.
So, with the idea of the ruleset being, by and large, permissive in nature, user_938036's point above stands. If the rules are written in such as way as to prevent something from happening, this is mostly adhered to in the bulk of Magic design with the above exceptions. Which means designing a card to directly contradict one of the few "can't" rules is not recommended and has very little precedent.
Beyond the rules issues, or concerns, the wording on the ability still doesn't work. I have seen enough of Reap's threads to know it won't be changed so the rest of the conversation is simply academic. Copying an Enchantment makes it *only* an enchantment and there are very few Auras that can be attached to enchantments so the situation isn't likely to come up with the current wording. And yes, I realize that isn't the intent, but we all know "intent" and "correct templating/wording" never go together in these designs so it is a moot point.
And, while I am at it: Sanctity gives the provided effect twice. Again, not the intent but the wording allows it. This has been discussed to death so I am not going to rehash other's arguments on it.
Multiple people on this thread have suggested multiple ways that this could be done, that don't require you to ignore rules. Instead of going through your logical contortions to justify this, why not just change the card to actually work? At the very least, do you acknowledge this card should have the added text "(This doesn't cause Auorarion to be placed into its owner's graveyard for failing to enchant a legal target)" or something like that?
Take Enchantment Alteration as an example. Instead of its current wording, what if it said "Attach target Aura attached to a creature or land to another permanent." Omitting the "of that type" that is in the current oracle wording. Now this card can move an aura with enchant creature to a land. What happens? The game says the enchantment falls off. The card doesn't change that. You need to clarify that, or build a way for it to work.
This is going to be my last post on this topic because quite frankly, you don't seem interested in valid critiques of your cards. Your card would never be printed as-is, irrespective of the quality of the design. If you're fine with that, then great.
It's because Rule 101 is intended to to be the one above all—for coherence, continuance, and force majeur of the game.
All 'card effects' override all 'comprehensive rules'.
Only other contradicting card effects can overrule from here. In which, the one that says 'can't' will take precedence between them.
This creates a perfect logical circuit, where the resolve can easily be found between the cards directly in play.
There is a point here you're missing in that—'the new target must be legal' clause is technically card text.
It's provided (and is intended to work) as card text—not comprehensive ruling—for continuance and functionality (for example, unadaptable parameters [power/toughness] on enchantments, etc.—which is not functional). However, this card text is simply placed in (parentheses) so that it creates an emphasis on this effect (an effect which is kind of abstract from the card/concept/effect).
This means and method is like a way to separate fantasy from reality—or work from fun.
Given that this is truly card text, nothing is changing here in regards to the Golden Rules and their domain.
For a card to break the game rules, it must explain how to actually do so. The rule above directly states that that if an Aura does somehow become attached to itself it is put into the graveyard. Your card as written wouldn't change that: It would become a copy of the chosen Aura and then enchant itself, and then state based effects would check and see an aura enchanting itself as say, "You need to go to the graveyard." and the card would say, "Okay!" and do so.
The problem is, there actually are probably ways to template the card for some of the functionality you want it to have in different ways, but you'd rather argue that the rules need to change to your whim than have a discussion of what interactions you want your card to have so we can help.
There would be a loop-hole in that Auras which enchant other types of permanents (such as 'enchant land') won't see their effects take precedence unless that supertype is gained by the host.
I do agree though, that this effect might (or should) be worded with an "As this enters the battlefield" function, so that it can enchant other types of permanents without any unnecessary adaptations being needed to hotfix the functionality.
Any time you need a wall of text to make an niche interaction work, you are making a card less elegant and worse. The better solution is to have your card copy non-Aura enchantments if you want it to be a creature. It avoids you having to do all these backflips of conditional rules to cancel other rules and its pretty standard practice for how the game handles effects that would be problematic with auras (or equipment too).
Try this:
Auorarion 1W
Enchantment Creature — Shapeshifter
You may have CARDNAME enter the battlefield as a copy of any enchantment on the battlefield. If CARDNAME copies a non-creature, non-Aura enchantment in this way, CARDNAME enters the battlefield as a 2/2 Shapeshifter creature in addition to its other types and abilities.
2/2
This will copy any enchantment and if it copies an Aura, the aura attaches to a legal permanent per the normal rules. If it copies a non-aura, it is a 2/2, and if it copies a enchantment creature it will keep that creature's power/toughness and types.
Meaning, I don't want it to be able to copy Dehydration or Oblivion Ring and enchant a creature an opponent controls.
Mine as well just make a different design for that entirely, which can also copy enchantments outside the battlefield this way.
Also, the fact that you specify that it “may” enchant itself (Making it optional) seems to imply that you can indeed use exhaustion on an opponent’s creature.
What do you want your card to do, because that's still unclear?
Is your intention for it to copy an enchantment and then be a 2/2 in addition to that, or is the 2/2 a default if there's no enchantment to copy?
If you copy an enchantment creature, do you want it to copy that creature's power/toughness, or still be a 2/2?
Do you want to be able to copy anyone's enchantments, or just your own?
Auras or not? (Understanding than an aura cannot be a creature and be attached to something)
It would require an "As ~ enters the battlefield" function, as was suggested and explained earlier (so that it becomes the enchantment before it enters the battlefield—and you can effectively make those choices). The functionality it currently has sees it become the enchantment after it enters the battlefield, which is too late to make the 'enchant parameter' selections.
I don't think it's healthy to have that functionality at this level, and this place on the mana curve.
Actually, your statement is somewhat incorrect in this case. Your current language uses the exact same "You may have X enter the battlefield as a copy of..." language that is also used on Mirrormade from Throne of Eldraine.
Here is an official ruling on how Mirrormade works from Gatherer: Link here
And here's the relevant quote:
"If Mirrormade copies an Aura this way, you choose what the Aura will enchant just before it enters the battlefield. You can’t choose any permanent cards entering the battlefield at the same time as that Aura. This doesn’t target the player or permanent it will enchant, so an opponent’s permanent with hexproof may be chosen this way. The chosen recipient must be able to legally be enchanted by the Aura, so a player or permanent with protection from one of the Aura’s qualities can’t be chosen this way. If there’s nothing legal for Mirrormade to enchant, it stays in its current zone (unless it’s a spell, in which case it’s put into its owner’s graveyard)."
In short, a copied aura attaches itself to something as it enters the battlefield and it needs not target in order to do so, dodging hexproof, heroic triggers, and so forth. It's a bit of an oddity but this is simply how the rules are right now.